Color Vision Standard - Advocacy

[Qutch]

Problem is, there are plenty of guys who pass the tests so why worry about the minority? Unless it was causing an issue with the number of recruits, then it isn't exactly a big issue. I get that for those with issues it seems unfair but if 90% have no problems, it isn't an issue in the bigger picture.

At the Armed Forces Induction phase, it does not matter (to the Service). My problem with the sloppy testing was that, half way thru Air Force UPT, some poor guy (one of my students, or an R & D test subject) would get re-tested during a physical for some reason, and mysteriously fail the same test he'd already repeatedly passed. So now I'm looking at a devastated airman, with a fortune invested in his training, and suddenly he's out of flying (but still has a long Service committment ahead of him). That is unfair and sort of pissed me off. So we'd march them back down to the Flight Surgeon's office, explain to them how to properly do color vision testing, and retrieve our very relieved student.

One thing that helped is that these students were like you when you faced the same challenge. They are not the type to give up easily, so they pushed thru and demanded a retest with the AO-HRR plates and calibrated lighting that we specified. All passed.

But I sort of agree that at the induction phase, it's no great loss. And besides, if a recruit was passive enough to sheepishly accept the verdict of the lowly Induction Center screening personnel, and not bother to consult a private ophthalmologist, he didn't have the burning desire required to make it thru UPT anyway, so no loss. But once they'd made it thru the gauntlet to my level, I'd fight for them. It was personal.
.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I did the light gun signal test, got a soda, and have never had to look at any plate ever again

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

So did I ... but I think the standards are different now. We were grandfathered in.

 

[BlueMoon]

Problem is, there are plenty of guys who pass the tests so why worry about the minority? Unless it was causing an issue with the number of recruits, then it isn't exactly a big issue. I get that for those with issues it seems unfair but if 90% have no problems, it isn't an issue in the bigger picture.

Guess it isn't an issue as long as it doesn't effect you. If the courts wrongly convict someone 5% of the time is that ok? I mean it is just a minority of the population.

Wrongly banning someone from doing something they love or taking their lively hood based on a highly discriminate test is a problem. A subject with a slight case of colorblindess will fail the Ishihara plate tests (It is vary rare for a person to be monochromatic most only have trouble distinguishing between hues of red or green). A test that is more applicable to the colors necessary for job performance such as the FALANT should be the standard.

I say this as someone who failed the Ishihara tests, but passed an alternative test accepted by the FAA at the time at an eye institute. Passed the test twice at 100%, got a letter for life from the FAA to exempt me from the color vision test at the medical. Never had a problem distinguishing colors in my life, can tell the differences in an airport beacon and all other lights necessary for my job. It hasn't been an issue in decade of flying, but sure was a hassle at the time.

 

[Qutch]

Guess it isn't an issue as long as it doesn't effect you. If the courts wrongly convict someone 5% of the time is that ok? I mean it is just a minority of the population.

Wrongly banning someone from doing something they love or taking their lively hood based on a highly discriminate test is a problem. .......

Bunk22 is very knowledgeable about this subject, and he's written on it before. To a large degree, having read all his previous posts on this also, I think what he is talking about is the effect on the overall aviation system (particularly the military which already has plenty of applicants). In his post here, he referred to it as the "bigger picture." I agree with Bunk22 in that respect. It's no great loss to the military's recruiting system. But I agree with you BM that, to the individual harmed by sloppy testing (military or civilian), it is important. That's why every time this subject comes up on JC, I post some of the research material I obtained in the Air Force while working in military R&D. To the failed applicant with a burning desire to fly, they may need some of these FAA and NIH documents to convince skeptical (and ignorant) AME's that they are not crazy, that they deserve to be retested using the correct lighting, and tested by someone who knows what they are doing. Myself, in order to avoid getting stuck in this trap, I sometimes refused the test and demanded an Ophthamologist. Below is one NIH document that backs your claim about wrongful job discrimination.


Source : National Institute of Health

"The MacBeth Lamp has become so expensive that many smaller programs cannot afford to purchase one. This problem has promoted the use of alternate light sources that have had a deleterious effect on test results and in some instances contributed to job discrimination."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1506614

Note: Air Traffic Controllers and electronic technicians also get caught up in this nightmare, so it's not just pilots who are affected by the ignorance and confusion over color vision testing.
.

 

[bunk22]

Guess it isn't an issue as long as it doesn't effect you. If the courts wrongly convict someone 5% of the time is that ok? I mean it is just a minority of the population.

LOL, lame comparison, not even the same. It might suck but fact is, for every person that fails a test, there are 10 others that won't, thus it's not a bigger issue.

Wrongly banning someone from doing something they love or taking their lively hood based on a highly discriminate test is a problem. A subject with a slight case of colorblindess will fail the Ishihara plate tests (It is vary rare for a person to be monochromatic most only have trouble distinguishing between hues of red or green). A test that is more applicable to the colors necessary for job performance such as the FALANT should be the standard.

I say this as someone who failed the Ishihara tests, but passed an alternative test accepted by the FAA at the time at an eye institute. Passed the test twice at 100%, got a letter for life from the FAA to exempt me from the color vision test at the medical. Never had a problem distinguishing colors in my life, can tell the differences in an airport beacon and all other lights necessary for my job. It hasn't been an issue in decade of flying, but sure was a hassle at the time.

I'm not disagreeing with you as I too can't always pass the color plates, luckily the Navy accepts the FALANT as color safe is the criteria. However, life is a biatch sometimes and some folks just won't make the cut. There has to be a standard and obviously if someone passionately believes they have what it takes, good on them, make it happen. But again, there are plenty of folks who want to be pilots who have no issues, the number of applicants isn't running thin.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

LOL, lame comparison, not even the same. It might suck but fact is, for every person that fails a test, there are 10 others that won't, thus it's not a bigger issue.

I'm not disagreeing with you as I too can't always pass the color plates, luckily the Navy accepts the FALANT as color safe is the criteria. However, life is a biatch sometimes and some folks just won't make the cut. There has to be a standard and obviously if someone passionately believes they have what it takes, good on them, make it happen. But again, there are plenty of folks who want to be pilots who have no issues, the number of applicants isn't running thin.

Wrong way of looking at this, regardless of how many "papers" you have written in the subject.

A selection criterion should be objective, and not discriminatory or arbitrary. The current regs are exceedingly arbitrary, and certainly discriminatory. For someone who's job it is to defend the Constitution of the United States, I would expect better (assuming you are in the military from you other posts).

 

[mshunter]

Man, you poor people with color vision issues. I'm not trying to rub anything in here, but thankfully I was blessed with great vision. I have never had a problem with the plates, in any lighting conditions. I taught a student who was semi-color blind a few years ago, and IIRC he had to do an alternate test. I don't remember what it was, but he passed.

I feel for you guys with the hurdles you have to overcome to get you medical.

 

[Qutch]

Man, you poor people with color vision issues. I'm not trying to rub anything in here, but thankfully I was blessed with great vision. I have never had a problem with the plates, in any lighting conditions. I taught a student who was semi-color blind a few years ago, and IIRC he had to do an alternate test. I don't remember what it was, but he passed.

I feel for you guys with the hurdles you have to overcome to get you medical.

Well see, that's the point of the OP. Dan644566 (the OP) has been studying this for years and he's trying to help some people who've been caught in this trap, and others who might get trapped in it some day. The latter group may recall this thread and start asking questions, rather than just accept the career death penalty verdict of the AME and abandon their career. If you ever run into anyone who's passed the test many times before, and then suddenly fails it, maybe you can educate them and salvage their career.

MS, I've known guys like you who've never had a problem with the test, and I hope you never do. But suddenly, one day they walk in for another test, and they mysteriously walk out with a "fail." Career over. Most AME's are clueless and can offer no explanation as to why the applicant suddenly can't pass the test. AME's, as do applicants, often mistakenly believe that 1) there is a fixed, well controlled, and well established standard for color vision testing 2) that people's color vision acuity is fixed, and 3) that nothing can alter or correct a color vision perception problem. None of those common assumptions is correct.
.

 

[bunk22]

Wrong way of looking at this, regardless of how many "papers" you have written in the subject.

A selection criterion should be objective, and not discriminatory or arbitrary. The current regs are exceedingly arbitrary, and certainly discriminatory.

It's not wrong, it is what it is. There are plenty of folks with normal color vision to cover the field. Maybe it's time to find a new job if you can't pass a simple test. Some people weren't meant to be pilots and the world needs plenty of plumbers and bartenders from what I hear.

For someone who's job it is to defend the Constitution of the United States, I would expect better (assuming you are in the military from you other posts).

Now this is funny...well, more like ridiculous and idiotic So now there is color vision discrimination and it's implied that it should be protected by a member of the military because I have sworn to protect the Constitution. Dude, can I use this in my signature because it's a good one.

 

[rframe]

It's not wrong, it is what it is. There are plenty of folks with normal color vision to cover the field. Maybe it's time to find a new job if you can't pass a simple test. Some people weren't meant to be pilots and the world needs plenty of plumbers and bartenders from what I hear.

Point is, wouldn't you rather be able to select the best candidates from that pool based on their actual abilities, rather than a test that has proven time again to be irrelevant to one's abilities to use color cues in flight?

 

[Qutch]

Point is, wouldn't you rather be able to select the best candidates from that pool based on their actual abilities, rather than a test that has proven time again to be irrelevant to one's abilities to use color cues in flight?

You have a point which has been documented in the medical literature. One of the reasons that test methods and standards keep changing (even in the military) is the ongoing recognition that the tests are not always indicative of real world results.

Medical authorities (within the military, FAA, and from country to country) can't completely agree on what "normal human color vision" is. Even if they could agree on that, they can't agree on what type of artificial simulated test would faithfully predict "normal color vision" in every individual under real world conditions. If they had agreed on it, authorities would be able to standardize the testing methods and they'd have stopped changing them. But testing methods are not standardized, they're always changing, and they'll probably keep on changing.

December 2008 Aviation Medicine Magazine as published by FlightSafety.org - "There is little [color vision testing] uniformity established by aviation authorities in different countries. Every regulatory agency in the world has its own set of standards, its own exams" - (Dr. Russell Rayman, Executive Director of the Aerospace Medical Association)
http://flightsafety.org/asw/dec08/asw_dec08_p38-41.pdf?dl=1
.

 

[Richman]

The problem is that there is more than one type of color-blindness, and even within those types there are levels of severity. Only some forms are sex-linked.

Red/greed discrimination sits on the 46th X chromosome, of which males only have 1, so the chances of them missing the required genes are higher than a female, which has two 46 X.

Blue/yellow discrimination sits on the 7th pair, so it is distributed evenly between the sexes. Note that it isn't on/off. It's all about how those genes are expressed. A person with two, fully functioning XX pairs will have optimal G/Y discrimnation, versus a person who has one good X, or is missing the gene from either X. Or there may be a problem with the protien expression, versus a base-pair problem.

I will grant you that many places dork up the Isarha plate test. They need to be clean plates (not faded), and the test absolutely needs to be done under the proper lighting, and not the crappy 15 year old flickering bulb that's likely in your AME's office.

With that said, I believe color-blindness was implicated as a casual factor in the TLH FedEx accident.

Richman

 

[bunk22]

Point is, wouldn't you rather be able to select the best candidates from that pool based on their actual abilities, rather than a test that has proven time again to be irrelevant to one's abilities to use color cues in flight?

There is a large enough pool of guys to get the best from. That's the issue, there are too many qualified applicants who can pass the tests. That's why it isn't a huge issue from my perspective.

 

[bunk22]

At the Armed Forces Induction phase, it does not matter (to the Service). My problem with the sloppy testing was that, half way thru Air Force UPT, some poor guy (one of my students, or an R & D test subject) would get re-tested during a physical for some reason, and mysteriously fail the same test he'd already repeatedly passed. So now I'm looking at a devastated airman, with a fortune invested in his training, and suddenly he's out of flying (but still has a long Service committment ahead of him). That is unfair and sort of pissed me off. So we'd march them back down to the Flight Surgeon's office, explain to them how to properly do color vision testing, and retrieve our very relieved student.

One thing that helped is that these students were like you when you faced the same challenge. They are not the type to give up easily, so they pushed thru and demanded a retest with the AO-HRR plates and calibrated lighting that we specified. All passed.

But I sort of agree that at the induction phase, it's no great loss. And besides, if a recruit was passive enough to sheepishly accept the verdict of the lowly Induction Center screening personnel, and not bother to consult a private ophthalmologist, he didn't have the burning desire required to make it thru UPT anyway, so no loss. But once they'd made it thru the gauntlet to my level, I'd fight for them. It was personal.
.

I agree Qutch, there is some sloppy testing in the military and I've seen it but I've always had the ability to go back and re-test. I'm certainly not saying to quite and move on; if this is something somebody wants bad enough, they will work through the mess to get the results they want. Some folks are getting emotional here, obvious with the ridiculous statements, but my point still stands, the majority of folks will pass the tests and thus there isn't going to be a big re-do of the system in place. I'm speaking mainly from a military standpoint here as that's all I know.

Where I certainly disagree is changing a method and having an experienced pilot suffer for it. This has and is taking place in the USAF. After money has been spent, training in place, it's not cheap to replace the pilot and to say he was good to go but isn't now...even though this pilot has had no issues flying his F-15E in 10 years, is not a wise thing to do IMO. It's a big reason why I continue to fly ejection seat aircraft with a bad back while a student recently was NPQ'd from jets for the exact same reason. I'm already established..though the Navy could have ejected me (pun intended) but chose not to while the new student had to go.

 

[bunk22]

With that said, I believe color-blindness was implicated as a casual factor in the TLH FedEx accident.

Richman

I believe the pilot in that mishap, he was the co-pilot and former P-3 Pilot in the Navy, was able to fight that final verdict but don't quote me on that. There was a good discussion on it over at www.airlinepilotcentral.com about a year and a half ago. The USAF medical side does not accept the FALANT as a valid color vision testing method. The USAF standards are color normal while the Navy is only color safe. This pilot was sent to the big USAF medical facility and tested there where it was supposedly determined he was severely color deficient but he had passed the Navy's FALANT test 9 years in a row. The head USAF Eye doc actually did the investigation, he was also the one who was able to do away with the FALANT in the USAF. This mishap, and a mishap in the Navy in 1980 is used as a justification of how the FALANT is not an accurate test and dangerous. The mishap in 1980 occurred at night off the boat, an F-4 was launched and was to join up on another Phantom but as he closed, supposedly he couldn't tell which side he was on as he couldn't determine the color of the wingtip light. He thought he was going head on and about to hit so he ejected himself and his RIO.

Of course problem is, the Navy has been using the FALANT since the 1940's I believe and I have been unable to find another mishap attributed to color vision or the failures of the FALANT test. So in 60 years, there has been one mishap but I've also read that this particular pilot had been cheating the program, cheating on the color vision tests but have been unable to confirm that.

Like I've said, if it wasn't for the FALANT, I would not have been a military pilot as it's the test that I've used since day one in the Navy, 20 years ago. On a few flight physicals, I've had to take the dot tests and actually passed a few of them and failed a few others, then they used the FALANT.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

There is a large enough pool of guys to get the best from. That's the issue, there are too many qualified applicants who can pass the tests. That's why it isn't a huge issue from my perspective.

Well, unfortunately for you, that is a wrongheaded position.

What if I created a test that selected out 10% of the population. This test had nothing to do with the candidates ability, it merely selected out people with, say, green eyes. Yep, green eyed people, sorry, you don't get to be (insert your favorite job here) because we already have enough applicants to choose from.

How quickly would that policy get changed? Why would it get changed? Would it be legal per our Constitution? And, I'm sorry, but isn't it the military's job to defend the Constitution?

 

[SteveC]

Are you really saying that you believe it is counter the U.S. Constitution to disqualify pilot applicants based on color vision deficiency?

 

[Trip7]

So did I ... but I think the standards are different now. We were grandfathered in.

What has changed?

 

[genot]

Well, unfortunately for you, that is a wrongheaded position.

What if I created a test that selected out 10% of the population. This test had nothing to do with the candidates ability, it merely selected out people with, say, green eyes. Yep, green eyed people, sorry, you don't get to be (insert your favorite job here) because we already have enough applicants to choose from.

How quickly would that policy get changed? Why would it get changed? Would it be legal per our Constitution? And, I'm sorry, but isn't it the military's job to defend the Constitution?

What if I ran a business that had thousands of applicants wanting the one opening I had and I required a master's degree to narrow the field. Or 7 years of related experience. Would you sue me for discrimination because you only held a bachelor's degree?

I feel bad for people with color vision deficiencies, my color vision is excellent. My actual vision is 20/200. Out of high school I wanted nothing more than to be a Naval Aviator until I asked just how bad my vision was (military aviation cutoff is/was 20/70). Ain't happening with these eyes. They absolutely should make sure the color vision tests are done properly and on the other hand a line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

What if I ran a business that had thousands of applicants wanting the one opening I had and I required a master's degree to narrow the field. Or 7 years of related experience. Would you sue me for discrimination because you only held a bachelor's degree?

I feel bad for people with color vision deficiencies, my color vision is excellent. My actual vision is 20/200. Out of high school I wanted nothing more than to be a Naval Aviator until I asked just how bad my vision was (military aviation cutoff is/was 20/70). Ain't happening with these eyes. They absolutely should make sure the color vision tests are done properly and on the other hand a line has to be drawn somewhere.

There are things that are legal to narrow the field, and things that aren't. You cannot choose to not hire someone based on a physical attribute if that attribute is not relevant to the job. For instance, you cannot say, "I don't hire people who are in wheelchairs" for a job that can be done in a wheelchair. A college degree or work experience Is not the same thing. Apples and oranges. (Logical fallacy called false analogy.)

Clearly, some level of color vision deficiency is not compatible with being a pilot. But most people who know about the subject agree that the current tests do not accurately assess where that line should be. The current process is discriminatory, and arbitrary.